Thursday, 6th December, 2012
All the trimmings
The Grumpy one seems to have a bit of an exclusive over on that other website in the form of a leaked email.
It was recently sent out to all members of the IPPG and relates solely to party-business. Knowing that his source of this leaked email is also an avid reader of my website, it does rather hurt to know I’ve been overlooked. Perhaps favours were owed? I may never find out.
Another thing Cllr. Mike Stoddart has been getting his teeth in to on his website is the motion of no confidence in the cabinet member for education and the Welsh language, Cllr. Huw George.
Cllr. Stoddart obviously has a keen interest in this one because he submitted it at the October council meeting. Like many others, he was shocked that, instead of transacting that item of business on the agenda there and then, the vice-chairman of the council saw fit to refer it to the cabinet for its consideration.
That meeting of cabinet was held on Monday, and following the October meeting of council, Cllr. Stoddart was required to provide a written submission in support of his motion. He was also afforded (and accepted) the right to address the cabinet during its discussion of this item. His participation is only mentioned in the minutes of the meeting on the council’s website, but he recounts it in more detail on his website, where he says:
“Having concluded that my chances of influencing the Cabinet on this issue were somewhere between zero and vanishing point, I instead made the following statement.”
He goes on to print the full statement he read out; extracts of which I have reproduced below:
“This Notice of Motion should have been debated at full council on October 18, but, for whatever reason, the vice-chairman used his discretion to remit it to Cabinet.”
“I am frankly amazed that the vice-Chairman of this council should think that this Cabinet was an appropriate forum for a debate on a motion of no confidence in one of its own members.”
I am content to let that submission speak for itself, and will not dignify these proceedings by taking any further part in this undemocratic charade.”
The decision at October’s meeting of council to bat this item to cabinet was controversial. A number of the IPPG’s “troops” were not present so the theory given most weight in the council tearoom was that it was an effort to buy time – in the hope that, when it comes back to the December full council, more of Cllr. George’s party chums will be present to vote to support him.
It just so happens that the December meeting of full council where Cllr. Stoddart’s motion of no confidence returns is next Thursday, the 13th.
It would probably be churlish of me to suggest a possible link, but immediately following the meeting the council chairman hosts his annual Christmas luncheon.
Who’s prepared to bet a Christmas dinner with all the trimmings on there being a full show of IPPG troops?
16 Comments...
Have your say...
Check out and 'like' my Facebook page ↴
Recent posts…
Will we ratepayers be contributing towards this luncheon? Are all 59 councillors invited?
Perhaps our councillors will pay full cost from their salaries.
Isn’t this a simple issue? Either the Vice Chairman was empowered to refer the matter to Cabinet or he wasn’t. Notwithstanding the ‘turkeys voting for Christmas’ feel to the decision, (which can be wittered on about ad nauseum), if he hasn’t acted outside his powers then ‘so what’?
I don’t think it’s as simple as Wally would make out. Just because something is legal doesn’t make it right.
Starbucks has the legal right to remit its profits to the Netherlands in order to reduce its tax liability, but even it now concedes that that is not the right thing to do.
As a general principle, chairmen have an overriding duty to act fairly, and any use of a power/discretion in a way that fails to meet that standard cannot, by definition, be right. Indeed, it is only because chairmen are expected to be impartial that they are entrusted with the power/discretion in the first place.
John, I believe the official line is that it is funded from the chairman’s civic budget or something similar – so yes would be the answer, as too for the other councillors attending.
Wally, the council’s constitution has no provision for motions of no confidence, though you might remember in 2011 a motion of no confidence in the council’s chief executive Bryn Parry-Jones was brought up at an extraordinary meeting and allowed by the chairman to be transacted there and then.
I have not accused the chairman of acting improperly, I have highlighted that the decision he took has added absolutely no value to the motion of no confidence, or the process.
As a complete aside, instead of the cabinet, the council’s constitution also allows for motions to be referred to the corporate governance committee.
I’m not saying that would have been appropriate either, but to me the distinction between the two is not clear-cut as far as referrals go, but in this case I am of the firm belief that it ought to have been transacted there and then.
I’m afraid (and it is unfortunate) that there seems to be a rather utopian view of how (any sort of) politics works here. What you describe is selective use of powers/discretion etc and it was ever thus.
The analogy with Starbucks is rather amusing and totally inappropriate in my view. I knew the ‘we must do what is right’ view would be offered and your co commentator did not disappoint! Any suggestion that Starbucks have done anything which is anything but good for corporate Starbucks is delusional and irrelevant in this case. I didn’t suggest either that anyone indicated impropriety on behalf of the chairman.
If the constitution does not allow for a motion of no confidence, then did not the chairman arguably act outside his powers in not throwing it out forthwith?
As a final thought, given that Chairmen are supposed to perform their role ‘fairly’, who decides on this imprecise assessment exactly?
Whilst there is no specific provision for a motion of no confidence in the constitution, it is still a motion.
You try to justify your suggestion that the Starbucks analogy is totally inappropriate by saying that Starbucks was solely acting in the interests of the Starbucks corporation and any other insinuation is irrelevant. Wasn’t the decision to refer this to cabinet made in a bid to increase the chances of one of the IPPG’s leading members surviving a vote of no confidence, thereby serving solely the interests of the IPPG?
Maybe you think this is fair, I don’t think it is, but if you call my view utopian then I think it says more about you than it does about me.
As for who who decides what is fair – those who tend to have a good sense of right or wrong and who have a handy way of showing it, are the electorate. Every single one of them. Even if they are certifiable wallies!
Wally, I don’t do utopian, though I may occasionally lapse into idealism. This argument rather depends on how you regard democracy under the rule of law.
The common error is to look upon it as a system for acquiring and retaining power through the ballot box, whereas, in my view, it is a system for distributing justice. Power only comes into it because, as a prerequisite for a just society, someone has to have the authority to modify and uphold the law.
With regard to constitutions: they are devices to curb the powers of those in the majority in order to avoid what Lord Hailsham referred to as an elective dictatorship.
One of the unwritten rules of any democratic constitution is that, in order to ensure that presiding officers (chairmen) don’t come to be seen as mere servants of the ruling group, they must use their discretion fairly.
As to what is fair and what isn’t, I think Jacob has it when he says that most voters have an instinctive sense of justice.
You just answered my point about Starbucks quite neatly yourself. That was exactly what I was saying that using Starbucks as an example of doing something ‘right’ was misguided. Read the response again, I would suggest. Mike Stoddart used them as an example and there was no ‘insinuation’, it was a statement.
And referring to the electorate as certifiable wallies is either a slur on me or the electorate. Well done.
Wally, as you suggested, I have re-read your comment, and I am still no-better informed. If I have missed your point, it must be a semantical issue.
The insinuation I referred to was your line “Any suggestion that Starbucks have done anything which is anything but good for corporate Starbucks is delusional and irrelevant in this case,” and not anything Mike Stoddart said.
You didn’t seem to grasp that something can be legal but at the same time unethical, so Mike raised Starbucks as another example for you of something which is legal but, in the eyes of many (now including Starbucks) is not the right thing to do. He did not raise it, as you mistakenly seem to believe, as a comparison between the actions of the IPPG and Starbucks.
Course it is Jacob. Right at the outset I made the observation on the decision being a turkeys and Christmas one, so I do not need to comment further as to whether I thought it was a good decision or otherwise.
Semantics? I don’t think so. You really don’t like ‘challenge’ as you put it and I’m happy to be certifiable, although I suspect some could be less sanguine.
On the contrary. Bring it on, I say. There are no sacred cows on this website. Constructive comments which bring something to the table are always welcome, even the critical ones.
Don’t give up. You might even post one yourself one day.
Similarly you and a grown up one. Time for lunch then ring PCC about non collection of bins again.
Calm down boys! If you are not careful the injustice of the cabinet referral will be lost in the heat of battle.
To reinforce Mike’s point, it should be noted that it is not only this referral system that is not open to being questioned by members. The constitution does not allow any challenge to any statement or ruling by the Chairman of council or by the chair of any committee. This is clearly absurd as the Chair is just as likely, more so by some past incumbents, to act unwisely, foolishly or ignorantly as the rest of us.
In 1996, when the constitution was first drafted, I moved that we should be able on a two thirds majority to overturn the Chair’s ruling but despite the Labour, Plaid Cymru and Liberal Democrats supporting, not a single member of IPG joined us. Plus ca change.
On the question of what’s right, do councillors declare membership of organisations such as the masons?
Hi Wally, yes, councillors do have to declare their Masonic connections, but only with regard to lodges within the county of Pembrokeshire.
So they could be members of a lodge in Carmarthen, or Cardigan, or London, even, and have no obligation to put it on record.
Bizarre that, only in Pembs. What’s the correlation between lodge membership declared and IPG I wonder?